Cute theory? I don't think you are in any position to be patronizing when you are touting a movie as stupid as 9/11 Mysteries.
Have you actually seen it?
Cute theory? I don't think you are in any position to be patronizing when you are touting a movie as stupid as 9/11 Mysteries.
Have you actually seen it?
Not interested? Scott I have read every one of your posts and looked at everything you have presented. I have followed this thread from the beginning. Don’t accuse me of not being interested just because I’m not gullible.Guess we'll have to agree to disagree here.
Not in a manner of a usual demolition, I agree.
There's a lot of evidence, but you don't see too interested in that.
I think you are confusing me with Geoff.Anyway, I asked on the loose change forums concerning what your geomorphologist friend said. Here is their rebuttal:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=144208&t=663014
Dance around it all you want but it is not consistent with a controlled demolition.They're saying that the way it collapsed is inconsistent in some ways with usual controlled demolitions.
So the fact that it didn’t look like a controlled demolition actually makes it look more like a controlled demolition. Brilliant. Evidence does not matter when it comes to a faith such as yours.I personally find that it makes it look even more like a controlled demolition,
Rubble is pushed outwards due to the air being compressed by the pancaking.because instead of everything falling inwards (someone who didn't know much could be led to believe that the columns were weak), a lot explodes outwards, thus making it seem clear it was an explosion. Seriously, for me the pictures say it all.
Keep guessing. It is clear that absolutely everything is evidence for a controlled demolition with your religion, even the evidence against the controlled demolition.I'm guessing it's further evidence of controlled demolition.
You hold on to your bombs in the basement, bombs on the plane, bombs on every floor, super mega ultra thermite theory.Alright, you hold on to your pancaking theory.
So why post it?You mean this?:
**********************************************
No bombs – no 600,000 pound beam flying over 390 feet and piercing into the other building.
http://www.gallerize.com/WINDY_TOWERS_OF_9-11_1.htm
**********************************************
Link is dead.
Only if you have blind faith. A neat collapse points to a controlled demolition and a messy collapse points to a controlled demolition. Amazing.Both point to controlled demolition.
Troofers say that like it is actually compelling. Point me to the long list of incidents where large airliners have smashed into skyscrapers so we can see what happened all those times.The only thing is that one is an unusual controlled demolition. A steel frame building has never pancaked. .
Scott you don’t read other people’s links. Have you read screwloosechange yet?and the few decrepit buildings that have certainly don't happen the way the WTC buildings collapsed
From what I've seen, the pieces that were ejected were certainly not consistent with the pancaking theory, but if you believe you have a link that proves otherwise, by all means present it.
I agree that it seems strange that they didn't just use the plane.
Possibilities:
1- Missiles can hug the ground easier then planes.
2- Missiles can penetrate further then planes.
Before the plane enters the picture:
The plane:
You can quite clearly see the fuselage of the plane and its scale can be determined from the camera location as something being the size of Flight 77. Its tale fin is discernable, and its colour appears to resemble an American Airlines jet.
I agree that it seems strange that they didn't just use the plane.
But if you've ever seen those simulations, perhaps you might consider one thing; just how close to the ground that plane had to go; it's already been said that the supposed pilot was awful at piloting. Instead of getting a super duper pilot, it would have been much easier to just send in a missile and there is lots of evidence that that's what happened.
Who was the numbskull that said there were 84 camers pointed and waiting for a plane? or did the plane just happen to pass directly into the narrow field of view of 84 cameras? These people are nuts.
Yes, very strange indeed. The images are blurry but clearly show that the object is massive indeed - unless you think it's a missile skidding along the ground kicking up dust?
But if you've ever seen those simulations, perhaps you might consider one thing; just how close to the ground that plane had to go; it's already been said that the supposed pilot was awful at piloting. Instead of getting a super duper pilot, it would have been much easier to just send in a missile and there is lots of evidence that that's what happened.
There is no evidence at all that that happened. What are you referring to?
Flying is easy. Crashing is easy. Landing is hard.
All I see is a blur; you sure you're not imagining a little more then you're actually seeing?
There's atleast one short film dedicated entirely to all the evidence and the other speaks of it in fair detail (loose change). I have posted the links to these 2 videos as well as a lot more information, but you seem content to skip over virtually everything I write on it...
I don't agree that flying a 757 so close to the ground is in any way easy. But by all means, show me some videos of other commercial airliners coasting at hovercraft level.
Not at all. It's a massive white shape and clearly (based on the camera interval) moving quickly. I mean, it could be a whale, I suppose, but they're supposed to be far less explosive than an aircraft of almost any kind.
There's atleast one short film dedicated entirely to all the evidence and the other speaks of it in fair detail (loose change). I have posted the links to these 2 videos as well as a lot more information, but you seem content to skip over virtually everything I write on it...
Weeell, we've been over this. You won't watch "Screw Loose Change". Yet, I've already seen "Loose Change" at the least (as I mentioned before), and scanned other 9/11 videos.
None of them seemed particularly compelling for me. (I had to laugh at Dylan's "Are you ready for this?" question in explaining Flight 77's "actual" destination - clearly I wasn't ready.)
But you have yet to see SLC. So, rather, you're the one "content to skip over" it. What is it you want me to say about this?
Perhaps you could tell me what it is you wish to avoid by refusing to watch SLC?
Would it help you if I assured you that it isn't an unfair treatment of Dylan Avery's movie?
Heh. Hardly coasting, Scott, as you can see. They flew at very low level - which is not, so long as your hand doesn't waver, harder than flying at height and with the extra advantage of comparatively little wind. As for videos of other commercial airliners coasting at hovercraft level - have you ever flown on an airplane? They do it every time they land; again, crashing into something has the simplification of not even having to have the nose up.
So: having satisfied for you these points, will you now consent to informing yourself on the evidence for the other side? Please, view the film "Screw Loose Change" and if you want to discuss its elements, I would be only to happy to do so, assuming I have the time. (Busy month.)
Scott,
I realize you have a lot to respond to, since you're the only advocate for the TS position still standing, but when you can, look at this.
This was actually a break through moment for me....you almost conceded a point...which is good.
but what about the explosion...how did a missile make that kind of fireball?
Thats cool...
But it would be better if you just considered the evidence yourself and came to your own conclusions. Don't let other people do your thinking for you.